On CNBC, libertarian Nick Gillepie argues against financial conflict of interest reporting requirements. He contends that the resulting information is confusing to voters, and that those politicians without interests in the fields they regulate are often ignorant of the underlying subject matter.
I’m not persuaded that we should abandon reporting requirements. I am persuaded of two points: Gillespie is right that government is involved in far too much. Government reaches intrusively into many aspects of American life, and those intrusions create conflict after conflict.
I’m also convinced that existing conflict of interest rules, and even the simplest understandings, are frequently ignored and inequitably enforced. A city like Whitewater is lousy with conflicts not of business interests, but of overlapping and conflated roles and jobs.
There’s not adequate thought given to separation of responsibilities between committees and boards. The same people serve on boards that should be wholly independent of each other. That’s a serious conflict of interest that amounts to an insiders’ assurance that the projects they want are rushed through, and discussions they don’t want are ignored, from board to board during an approval process.
That’s how bad ideas become wasteful projects so quickly in Whitewater.
Here’s Gillespie battling against financial conflict rules and for smaller government that creates fewer conflicts.
Link: Nick Gillespie on Congressional Conflicts of Interest.